User:Rileybuus/Bear Butte/Marieatthemill Peer Review

General info
Riley
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rileybuus/Bear Butte
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bear Butte

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead is largely the same, with some minor changes. I don't really understand why you changed "many indigenous peoples" to "many other indigenous peoples and groups" - it's the beginning of the paragraph, so there isn't a previously mentioned group that they're "other" from. The last paragraph appears to contain information that isn't present in the body of the article, but this is also true in the original article. The information added to the lead is overall helpful and expands readers' understanding of the landmark.

Content

The new content added to the geological history section reads to me as repetitive. "Early Tertiary" is an outdated term for the Paleogene Period, and the intrusion was already mentioned in the sentence "This is the result of the forcible entry (or intrusion) of magma into cooler crustal rock in the Black Hills area during the Eocene Epoch." I would recommend keeping the geological history section the same as it was originally.

You added good information about the history of treaty-making and modern legal battles around the area in particular, and these additions fill in important content gaps in the original article.

Tone and Balance

I think your edits do a good job expanding the Native American perspective on Bear Butte while also maintaining neutrality.

Sources and References

There are several points in which I think your edits could be bolstered by including more extensive sourcing. One place is in the first paragraph of the "importance to indigenous peoples" section, where you didn't include a source on the claims about Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Lakota connections to the land. I also think the section about the conflict between the local bar owner and the native people in the area should probably be sourced.

Organization

I like that you split up the modern history section into several different subsections, although a note I would make is that only the first word in the headers should be capitalized. However, I think that having two sections, "importance to indigenous peoples" and "modern history" may be clearer than the current three-section layout, since the section about treaties is not entirely about treaties but rather about the general history of the area.

There are several grammatical errors throughout the edits you added, so you should try to proofread them and make sure that these errors are removed.

Overall impressions

I really like that you expanded on the history of the area as it pertains to indigenous people, and I think that splitting the modern history section to add one that's specifically about the importance of the area to indigenous people was a very good move. Overall, your edits include good content, albeit sometimes with grammatical errors and loose sourcing, so I think that with some more editing to refine them they'll be a very valuable addition to the article.